About your Search

20121226
20130103
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
any attention. >> i'm going to go with worst political move of the year, everything carl spent his money on. erveg. >> you're stealing my thunder. >> i could have gone for the wealthy, but u you know, they have so much money, who cares. carl rove is the one, the supposed architect and the supposed genius. >> i agree. without tipping my hand, i have a special move for carl rove coming up. i think the worst was the republicans engineering on an aggressive voter suppression campaign. i think they angered and energized voters that may not have come out. the worst thing to do is to go after people when you want them to remain asleep. i think that was the worst move of the year. had they not done this, i think tmd have been a much closer election. but people took it personal and i think it really became a tipping point. >> and to take something from people that was earned and gained with such sack ra fiesz. . >> now it's time for a light ning round. quick answers, please. you hear me, richard? the spot light award. this revvie gos to the movement that defined the 2012 campaign. >> it has
move of the year? everything carl rove spent his money on. >> oh, that's good. >> you're stealing my thunder. >> i could have gonl for the wealthy, elderly. but, you know, there are elderly and they have so much money, who cares. carl rove is the one, the supposed architect, the supposed genius. >> so exposed in this election. >> i agree. without tipping my hand, i have a special recognition for carl rove coming up. i think the worst political move of the year was the republicans' engineering on aggressive voter suppression. i think they angered and energized voters that may not have come out. the worst thing to do is to go after people when you want people to remain asleep. i think they woke up a sleeping giant. that was the worst move. had they not done this, i think it would have been a much closer election. but people took it personal and i think it really became a tipping point in the election. >> yeah, nothing makes someone want to vote than saying you can't vote. then you will do whatever it takes. >> and to take something from people that was earned and gained with such sacri
office? >> carl rove thinks he's conspireing with the easter bunny. >> is the republican party fired up and ready to go? >> wednesday, june 14th. wednesday, december 7th. >> and this is "now." >> this year the grand old party gifted us the grand old clown car. time to bring in steady eddie, aka rick santorum. seems to be in the throws of a tantorum. i say hot garbage. mitt romney, the kaiser of the republican party. message to newt gingrich, no hold's bar. that was my addendum. the angry teddy bear, newt gingrich. the angry teddy bear, the angry attack muffin. i noticed you liked to call him that as well. >> i stole that from you. >> you are the creator of the angry teddy bear comparison with newt gingrich. >> for that, i expect to be charging more higher rates in the coming months. >> as the primaries produce new names, so did our show. >> the effortlessly elegant jonathan capehart. eternally buzzy ben smith. ari melber. steve. queen bee and managing editor of the sunday morning himself. favorite import from the uk, maggie haberman. michael steele, notorious as we call you here. thank
that to succeed but are not on board with you yet include senator barbara boxer, dianne feinstein, pat leahy, carl levin, max baucus and depending on how you pars the statement, senator jack reed. why are your colleagues holding back and what are you doing to push them on this issue? >> recognize, this is an institution, the senate, that rarely changes its rules. so folks have been here often for very long time saying, well, we can always make a gentleman's agreement to make this place work. we score the social contrast. that would be ideal and certainly if these rules worked in the past why can't they work today. so there are folks reluctant to change them saying the better thing is to restore the social contrast. quite frankly, we've tried that. the minority leader and the democratic leader worked out a gentleman's agreement two years ago. it failed utterly. it's just clear, we're not in the same world. >> sir, how do you define failure? >> well, we failed in the sense that it was supposed to eliminate these huge number of filibusters and allow us to get an agenda on the floor. no longer have th
never know when a carl icahn is going to show up and upset the apple cart and cause a corporation to get that one time share price bump up. but in the long run, it is hard to make your long-term returns. if you have an questions about whether that is happening, i have a new piece of macro economic evidence for you. number one, our public corporations are disappearing. the number of public companies listed on the u.s. exchanges has declined by more than 40% in the last 15 years. if it were a species, we would call it in danger. number two, the life span of a fortune 500 company was about 75 years in the 1920's. it is down to 15 years today. so if you have any doubt that short-termism is harming our corporations, that should be some evidence you think about. you might wonder if there is more going on than you have realized. what are we to do? the good news is, i do see this problem is very fixable, or at least improve global. -- improveable. in 1960, the holding period for a share of stocks was eight years. today is down to around four months. what can we do to change that? there are a mil
in companies that you think are doing the right thing and you never know when a carl icahn is going to show up and upset the apple cart and cause a corporation to get that one time share price bump up. but in the long run, it is hard to make your long-term returns. if you have an questions about whether that is happening, i have a new piece of macro economic evidence for you. number one, our public corporations are disappearing. the number of public companies listed on the u.s. exchanges has declined by more than 40% in the last 15 years. if it were a species, we would call it in danger. -- endangered. number two, the life span of a fortune 500 company was about 75 years in the 1920's. it is down to 15 years today. so if you have any doubt that short-termism is harming our corporations, that should be some evidence you think about. you might wonder if there is more going on than you have realized. what are we to do? the good news is, i do see this problem is very fixable, or at least improveable. we know what we need to do. of the first thing we need to do is try to reduce the influence of sho
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6